- From: janvoskuil via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 09:53:59 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Yes, I think so, but it would need to be part of an L2-relation because we have the entity, the foaf:Agent (prov:agent or 'volitional entity'), and the concept. dcat:Relationship (with dct:relation) could be generalized. There is a strong intuitive difference, though, between "translation of" en "version of" on the one hand (which are typical dcat:Relationships, between entities and 'non-volitional entities'), and relations like "recipient", "stakeholder". Perhaps we could use dct:relation in the context of dcat:Relationship to cover both cases, and let the concept do its work. Users could use different concept schemes or a concept hierarchy to indicate the difference more clearly. Alternatively, or in addition, there could be two subproperties, say, 'relatedObject' for "translationOf" and 'relatedAgent' for "adressee" (with 'agent' in the foaf-sense). This would perhaps be the most elegant solution. It would generalize the definition of dcat:Relationship from "An association class for attaching additional information to a relationship between DCAT Resources" to something like "... a relationship between a DCAT resource and another resource, such as a foaf:Agent or another DCAT resource". Also, the superclass would then be prov:Influence rather than "Entity influence". -- GitHub Notification of comment by janvoskuil Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1521#issuecomment-1154970538 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2022 09:54:00 UTC